Litespeed

Phil- Don't worry about the shed floating away mate. Just tie the wifey to it and all will work out in the wash. I absolutely love a big storm except when on a motorbike or in the air. A great Boom Crash Opera

Mate it is not a stupid statement- keep calm and have a bex, cup of tea and a lie down. It is rather simple- as Prime Minister he proposes to cabinet a new law (which is written by parliamentary legal staff and the attorney generals department)- cabinet approves it and then it goes through to the lower house of parliament. The government of the day (lead by same Prime Minister John Howard) is in control of the lower house (otherwise it is called the opposition and has no control) It is only the government which can effectively put forward legislation in the lower house, as they are the government and the lower house is the house of government. The lower house can debate all it wants but as long as the government has the numbers (ie is the government) it passes legislation in the lower house. John Howard ruled with a iron fist and no one dared to not tow the party line of what he wanted- unlike the current LNP rabble. John wanted and John got- always. Then it goes to the Senate- the house of review. Here the government may or may not have numerical control (Howard actually did in his last term). They can argue all they like and kick it back to the house of reps with some changes or vote for a inquiry or pass it through or refuse in which case the government sends it back again to them. If that happens twice it can be used as a trigger to desolve both houses of parliament called a double dissolution and a complete election for all members of the senate plus the lower house is called. That is what just happened here- Turnbull rolled the dice and lost everything bar his torn shirt. One man can ensure the passing of a piece of legislation if he is infact the Prime Minister and holds firm control of his party- John Howard did it all the time. He is as Prime Minister by virtue in charge of the lower house and as such the leader of the government of the day. All that is then required is for it to pass the senate- which unless the major opposition party (in that case Labor )has a majority by itself in the senate- it is powerless to stop. That is where minority senators come in. At no point in any of this does it require the asscent of the Labor party to make legislation lawful or any non government party or independant. It is purely down to numbers on the day of the vote. And when Howard had a majority in both houses- nothing could stop him putting anything he liked into law except a revolt from his own side or plain common sense- neither of which appeared likely. Once it has passed both houses all that then happens is the Governor General signs it and it becomes law. Done and dusted. At no point in any of this can a strong Prime minister be stopped doing their thing as long as they control the numbers in the lower house and can sway enough for a majority of those voting on the day in the upper house. You could have 140 senators but if only 10 are present and 6 are government- bingo it becomes law.( a extreme example) QED For the above to not be true- it assumes that the government of the day does not in fact have confidence in its Prime Minister- for it is he/she that calls the shots. To not approve what they propose in cabinet is the kiss of death to your political career- that is why the are BOSS.

I actually have four very heavy volumes of English law written at the turn of last century and even it is not real supportive of the power of god.

"Grace of God" What a load of codswallop- it just means whilst she continues to breath. Ever heard the old saying " here i go by the grace of god"? It only has some meaning in the sense that under british law royalty must be a member of the church of england to be head of state. Which was purely a measure to stop the catholics getting back in control after the debacles of Henry VIII and bloody Queen Mary. Our Constitution bars explicitly any religious test for been a officer of the crown, which also includes any employee of the comonwealth Lizzy has and the english parlaiment and the Privvy council long since been written out of our affairs. It is merely a figure head and has no legal effect. Lizzy did not approve of Kerr sacking the Whitlam government- it was all done on Kerrs back and she had nothing to do with it. Nor could she have stopped it. Just as she could no longer send us to fight for Queen and Country. We have to be dickheads and volunteer our forces instead. It is only a vestige of the old commonwealth as we have no president to sign into effect our laws

It was Howard that put the law through cabinet, then the lower house and was not stopped by the senate- which is entirely different to been approved by Labor. Our constitution does not have anything to do with god and actually prohibits it. It is merely case law that has agreed to by judges that traditionally have been conservative christians. A lot of our governments laws and spending programs would not stand up to consistent onslaught over the matter of religion and its role in society. It is only by very narrow definitions of case law that so far the high court has not thrown the religious chaff out completely. A case in point is school chaplains- it failed to be illegal narrowly on a technical point of case law and new legislation was hurriedly made to try and provide support. A sustained attack on this case law would eventually win. And the government would no longer be able to fund anything to do with religion. And the country would be far better for it.

Not quite Bex, The referendum has no effect on this. It was Howard who actually changed the marriage act to specifically say "between a man and woman". Hence parliaments ability to just change the law back and be done with it. But cowardice and christian bullyboys will have none of that. Howard knew there was nothing stopping someone actually having same sex marriage under the law and constitution as it stood. It only required bureaucrats to allow it or a appeal to the high court to enforce it.

My bathroom is very retro.................. I just look in the mirror

Hang on to them They are retro they is

Given that the Christian lobby are to get the lions share of 7.5 million to fight against the same sex marriage plebisite, it would appear we are definitely a Christian semi democracy

Anyone notice that one of the biggest neighbors in Asia is vastly catholic and are currently running state sanctioned death squads to purge the country of "drug dealers and users". Thousands are been murdered and no proof is necessary just a rumour will do. Or someone disliked for any reason. The Philipines is hurtling down a very deadly path.

Overnight another leading doctor in the Polio program was shot dead by gunmen on a motorbike in Pakistan.

As a interesting aside, to show the potential of viral warfare or just our luck running out check the series called the "Last Ship" Watch The Last Ship FREE!! A very large % of the world is wiped out and yes some see it as Gods work.

Should sell it to a swingers club

I had the exact same Charger as the one he stands in front of for the ad. Sunfire yellow. Loved that car

Here it is The Galaxy song

Monty Python did a great song about this in "Meaning of Life" from memory.

Not sure about a vaccine yet but current cure is 15 grams of lead- self administered

And like all diseases it should be the subject of government action to remove the malady from the face of the earth for the sake of all. Yes I know unlike Polio it will be difficult but at least we could identify it for what it is - a delusional state of the mind.

Well if there is a god, then at least he has a sense of humour and chose to smite those that seek to make money from him. about bloody time- if only he would keep it up .

Huge demand actually,......,..... Stop drinking Do the lawns Wash the car Spend the money on a present instead Go shopping for me The list is almost endless See what happens if the husband makes demands.....

More aimed at the previous pope but relevant for the vatican as a whole. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTIorwtJbhE

I am a atheist? I will leave it to Tim Minchin to educate for me

Turboplanner, I think you have been drinking the altar wine again. None of your comments hold water as a reason for discrimination except for some perceived divine right of religion to be above the law and decency. As you believe of the divine right of believers in fairies in the sky to hold those below them in contempt, I should not have any expectation that facts will get in the road of your version of the world. And just as proof that you will ignore- considerable exemptions in the law allow discrimination on religious grounds by religious organisations. No one else is allowed to discriminate on religious grounds except religions.

I heartily agree with you Bruce. A lot of areas in Australia's workforce are actively discriminatory to atheists and career progression. Almost all non governmental schools are religious based The majority of community welfare and disability providers are religious based A lot of private health providers are religious based The police force still has a dominant religious basis for senior promotion and for prosecutions of certain crimes. Certain areas of the armed forces - non Christians have low prospects of promotion. Any employee of Sanitarium foods ( a untaxed arm of the Seven day Adventists) Some is absolutely blatant such as the legal right of religious organisations to sack you for not meeting their "moral" code even if you are just a cleaner. Legislation exempts them from normal employment rules. Others are behind the scenes and never disclosed, but just as dominant. We are far from a fair go for all in Australia. If you are a atheist, female and not white, you really are doomed in some professions.

I agree the regulator is been tough but compared to the life bans many in other sports have received- they are getting a small penalty. They may have been naive to believe the club but the fact they had to sign documents that they would never tell about the injections speaks volumes. They are professional sportsmen, highly paid and are fully aware that almost anything they take can be a risk- even cough medicines. Shane Warne got a ban for cough medicine from memory and he copped it sweet.(gave him more time for shagging and drinking) Yes, they would have had some pressure to sign and take the injections but as it has been said- they have their own lawyers and managers to look after their financial and legal interests, because they know the clubs will screw them otherwise. The antidoping rules are simple and actually do not require a science degree- basically you take nothing except antibiotics when you are sick. If in doubt- don't take it. Anything they give you to assist you to either recover or be stronger essentially is a performance enhancer- so is banned. As is the copious illegal drugs they often take. But their system of testing and reporting has always been slack and lead to the belief they could get away with it. To believe as a player that a special concoction they are giving you, that you can't talk about, and comes with a need to waive your rights and will boost your performance is not against the anti doping rules stretches it too far. And assumes the intelligence of the players is serverly substanded